Vodafone McLaren MP4-27 Mercedes

[ell66]

Definately looks toasted, impressive... I wonder if it's doing what it's been designed to do? Lap times weren't anything special.

This is testing.

True, but when someone discovers a golden egg, it's usually obvious, Brawn for example.

Well its not been obvious this year so far and theres far bigger differences in fuel load these days.

[i70q7m7ghw]

im surprised the bodywork surrounding the exhaust exit doesnt contravene the "cone" in which no body work is allowed.

i know the blowing of the wheel fairings and the suspension members will be allowed as they are unsprung and therefore by definition not body work.

Well it's a 3 degree cone, that's not massive, I bet the walls of that exhaust fairing are a perfect 3 degree cone extending from the exhaust.

[avatar]

edit: sorry, ignore this!
just me being tired and a bit of an idiot!

[i70q7m7ghw]

... wow, that'd be one heck of a loop hole... perhaps McLaren are preparing the mother of all exhaust fairings...

[Gridlock]

50 000 (square millimetres) = 0.05 square metres = a square 22.3 cm on each side or a circle diameter 15.9cm (I hope, I'm rusty!)

[avatar]

50 000 (square millimetres) = 0.05 square metres = a square 22.3 cm on each side or a circle diameter 15.9cm (I hope, I'm rusty!)

You're right, it's late - and I was being a dumbass - sorry!

[AdamCarpenter]

This is my first post on these forums, I read the car threads religiously, but i'm in no way in the know with McLaren as a team or with the engineering of Formula 1 cars. I do, however, have a theory about the McLaren exhaust. Reading Caito's post with the exhaust regs, I think they may be exploiting a rather cheeky way of interpreting one of them. Specifically this line:

"5.8.4 Once the exhaust tailpipes, the bodywork required by Article 3.8.4 and any apertures
permitted by Article 3.8.5 have been fully defined there must be no bodywork lying within a
right circular truncated cone..."

Note that it says no extra bodywork is allowed in the truncated cone of the exhaust plume AFTER the tailpipes, bodywork AND APERTURES have been fully defined. Because the slots in the McLaren bulges form the aperture for the exhaust as well, and begin at the end of the tailpipe, then as long as they are within the size guidelines for exhaust apertures, then could McLaren argue that they are legal as there is no extra bodywork AFTER the aperture i.e. the slots are actually extended apertures? I think they might be able to... Just my 2 cents.

[Gridlock]

....and that's total, giving us the 2 ~7.5cm exhaust pipes we see

[MikeFromCanada]

Definately looks toasted, impressive... I wonder if it's doing what it's been designed to do? Lap times weren't anything special.

That burnt section seems to fall right in line with the exiting exhaust channel. It looks as though the same burnt effect is occurring on the driver's right side of the car as well. Very interesting.

[beelsebob]

This is my first post on these forums, I read the car threads religiously, but i'm in no way in the know with McLaren as a team or with the engineering of Formula 1 cars. I do, however, have a theory about the McLaren exhaust. Reading Caito's post with the exhaust regs, I think they may be exploiting a rather cheeky way of interpreting one of them. Specifically this line:

"5.8.4 Once the exhaust tailpipes, the bodywork required by Article 3.8.4 and any apertures
permitted by Article 3.8.5 have been fully defined there must be no bodywork lying within a
right circular truncated cone..."

Note that it says no extra bodywork is allowed in the truncated cone of the exhaust plume AFTER the tailpipes, bodywork AND APERTURES have been fully defined. Because the slots in the McLaren bulges form the aperture for the exhaust as well, and begin at the end of the tailpipe, then as long as they are within the size guidelines for exhaust apertures, then could McLaren argue that they are legal as there is no extra bodywork AFTER the aperture i.e. the slots are actually extended apertures? I think they might be able to... Just my 2 cents.

What a great first post, well done that man!

I love your interprettation, and I suspect you're very close to the mark with what McLaren and Ferrari are trying to do. I have a feeling that Charlie visited both teams and said roughly "uhhhh... no, that's a wrong reading" – hence why both have cut away sections of their bodywork post exhausts.

This might also go a long way to explaining the stuff about Ferrari's use of heat resistant materials.

[Chalke]

Reading those excerpts Caito listed, the exhaust and slot lie within the regulations... precisely... that is to say it fulfills them to the letter, likely not a mm more or less.

Their only issue might be with the technical directive and it's interpretation regarding "any designs that reingest or redirect exhaust flow for principally aerodynamic reasons". I imagine McLaren will argue that if anything their slot helps maintain the direction of flow for the duration of it's length, rather than 'redirect' it. If the slot didn't exist the air flowing around the sidepods would interact with the exhaust plume and change it's direction to some degree, this seems to me inevitable with the current rules.

The only way to minimize this in my eyes would be to define a longer length of exhaust that must stand proud of the bodywork, defining that no part of the exhaust aperture can be within 'x' of the surface of the car... and even then clever designers would no doubt see what they could do!

In short, they're following the rules, but interpretations are by definition not always predictable, and liable to change - ask Lotus.

[AdamCarpenter]

What a great first post, well done that man!

I love your interprettation, and I suspect you're very close to the mark with what McLaren and Ferrari are trying to do. I have a feeling that Charlie visited both teams and said roughly "uhhhh... no, that's a wrong reading" – hence why both have cut away sections of their bodywork post exhausts.

This might also go a long way to explaining the stuff about Ferrari's use of heat resistant materials.

Thankyou very much! From the sounds of things it will get outlawed as it seems the FIA don't want anyone gaining aero benefit from the exhausts, but it could be the line they are towing for legality, or it could be one of the lines they are towing for legality if the bodywork is outside of the 3 degree cone as well.

[Shaddock]

[AdamCarpenter]

From Shaddock's pic, it looks like the top surface at the end of the bulge (the nearest point to the camera) has a slightly wider aperture than the rest of the slot... Perhaps they are aiming the exhaust at it, so this slightly wider section is where the 3 degree cone passes?

[forty-two]

Also, notice where McLaren have applied the black heatproofing... only either side of the end of the channel, not at the top.

I think the slot to the top is there merely because the regs say it must be visible from above. I don't think the slot is there for aero purposes per se (although it might have an aero benefit too), but more to comply with the letter of the rules.